Which Founding Father Didn't Like the GPL?

Michael J. Jordan, Linux Online Staff

December 5, 2003

SCO came out Thursday with one of their more preposterous propaganda pieces disguised as yet another Darl McBride "open letter"(R) to the Linux community. These periodic sermons, ghost written by the SCO legal team / PR department (after all, it's hard to tell the difference) are meant to chastise us, the Linux sinners, the people who supposedly want other people's stuff for free. This time, Darl claims we're standing in the way of "progress" and we're weakening the bedrock of business by using puns like "copy left".

In what is not much more than an appeal to shareholder patriotism, Darl's PR team argues that Linux is unconstitutional. It would seem that someone in Utah looked at some dusty old books (maybe they were in the same store room as the lost Novell contracts were) and came to the conclusion that the GPL is in direct violation of that venerated piece of 18th century parchment at the National Archives in Washington. The SCO CEO is now quoting James Madison to back up his latest theory: the Linux community is trying to bring down the Republic by distributing Free Software. Watch out Benedict Arnold - here come Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.

I don't know about Darl, but my knowledge of the Founding Fathers' intentions didn't come from some intern in the PR department. It came from the courses I took before I was awarded my BA in history from a small liberal arts college in New Hampshire. That's the same New Hampshire where soon another activity set in motion by the Founders will take place, namely free elections. That's Free as in Free Software. It was in that same New Hampshire that I taught my first high school class the ins and outs of their constitution. I think those guys wearing wigs and shoes with big buckles set out to design a way to govern and lay the framework for a civil society. Though we may, and often do, dispute their intentions, I don't think one of them was to prohibit the distribution of programs under the GPL. I think scholars like Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen would agree on that.

As a matter of fact, one of the Founding Fathers was quite convinced that the free distribution of knowledge was beneficial to society. Here's what Founding Father Ben Franklin had to say about his decision to "freely" distribute the way to build the Franklin Stove:

I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

I'd suggest to Darl that instead of signing off on some press release about what the US Constitution does or does not say , that he actually read works like the Federalist Papers that his PR department is citing - that he actually read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography as well as Jefferson's and many other papers of that period. I might add that George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour would be of help to him personally.

By reading these works, he will gain more insight into the Founders' intentions (or lack of them) than any PR hack might make up for him. He doesn't even have to make the trip to the bookstore. They're all in the public domain and freely available on the Internet, since copyright, much to his dismay, is not yet perpetual.

But I doubt he's interested. Darl McBride doesn't seem to me to be to be the type to want to emulate the behavior and espouse the ideals of those men of that time. Darl represents just one more of the ethically-challenged people who are now ensconced in leadership positions in the US, whether they be politics or business. Just another business leader (if you can call SCO a "business") who can't see beyond the value of his stock options - whose only vision is that pot of gold that he imagines is awaiting for him at the end of a judge's gavel. Darl wants you to believe he's in this for more noble motives - that he's the great protector of intellectual property and the US Constitution. But he's no patriot in the Franklin-Jefferson-Washington 18th century mold. He's a 21st century patriot - a huckster who knows how to sell you fear, uncertainty and doubt wrapped in the flag and reap short-term rewards for himself. To read his open letter is to read SCO's version of "Common Sense" though with Thomas Paine's there's little in common and less sense.

At any rate, even if we're forced to read SCO's foolish arguments there's one consolation. If they have to go back to 1789 to explain why Linux belongs to SCO, then there can't be too much evidence to back them up here in the present.

Michael J. Jordan can be reached at Michael.Jordan++AT++linux.org